I will take a look.

On 20/06/25 07:16, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> Hi Sam,
> 
> Thanks for looking into this.
> 
> Hi Adhemerval,
> 
> Would you please look into how glibc should handle this?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> --
> Maxim Kuvyrkov
> https://www.linaro.org
> 
>> On Jun 19, 2025, at 04:24, Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Could you file a glibc bug for this please? It needs some analysis to
>> see if it's an FP or not.
>>
>> There's actually a suppression for -Os already there:
>>
>>                            if (elem < table_size)
>>                              {
>>                                /* Compare the byte sequence but only if
>>                                   this is not part of a range.  */
>>
>>                                /* The compiler might warn that idx may be
>>                                   used uninitialized, however it will be
>>                                   reached iff elem < table_size which means
>>                                   that it was properly set in the loop
>>                                   above.   */
>>                                DIAG_PUSH_NEEDS_COMMENT;
>>                                DIAG_IGNORE_Os_NEEDS_COMMENT (8, 
>> "-Wmaybe-uninitialized");
>>                                if (! is_range
>>
>> # if WIDE_CHAR_VERSION
>>                                    && __wmemcmp (n, &wextra[1], c1) == 0
>> # else
>>                                    && memcmp (n, &extra[idx + 1], c1) == 0
>> # endif
>>                                    )
>>                                  {
>>                                    n += c1 - 1;
>>                                    goto matched;
>>                                  }
>>                                DIAG_POP_NEEDS_COMMENT;
>> _______________________________________________
>> linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolch...@lists.linaro.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
> 

Reply via email to